<p>wonderfully stated poetgrl</p>
<p>PG - I agree. What I meant to say was chechnian terrorest groups aren’t as threatening as those coming out of Middle East who has more stakes in their activity. I am distinguishing terroest group by ethnicity not to stereotype but because they have a different agneda and organization.</p>
<p>Oh, I know you agree, Igloo. I was just writing a post.</p>
<p>People forget that the IRA was a very, very bloody and cruel terrorist group. It’s not as simple as Irish are a danger. No. They were probably at the restaurant with you… particularly in Boston, back then. ;)</p>
<p>Certain people are dangerous. We want to protect ourselves. No doubt.</p>
<p>But more women are killed or injured by their husband every year in America than they are by terrorists. I don’t think we want to say Husbands are dangerous… though they do seem to be so, to some. ;)</p>
<p>War on husbands?</p>
<p>War on women?</p>
<p>…war on misinformation.</p>
<p>Oops, that nearly typed itself out. If we are interested, maybe we can google to double check. So much speculation and half details.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, but we recognize in all sorts of ways that many women are in danger from their male partners and it is a truism that the first person investigated when a woman is murdered is her male partner.</p>
<p>But we are squeamish about saying that if there is an act of terrorism, the first people to be should be looking at are Islamists, despite the reality. Of course most men aren’t abusers and most Muslims are not Islamists, but most Islamism is, itself, incompatible with western values.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with you at all, Zoosermom. I actually said far back in the thread that I thought it was ridiculous to pretend that the Chechnyans hadn’t been infiltrated by radical islamists.</p>
<p>I’m not all that PC. I think it is as much of a hindrance to free speech and reality as any other extreme religious movement in the United States. And I do consider the PC movement to be religious and Puritanical in character and actions. JMO</p>
<p>I agree completely. I think it is sometimes an abundance of kindness to not want to point the finger at Islamists, but Muslims who aren’t Islamists know they are as threatened by Islamists as any Christian or Jew.</p>
<p>I also wondered why the FBI hadn’t identified Tamerlan, as a person of interest early on, since they had in fact previously interrogated him for extremist beliefs. One would imagine in 2013 that they could easily pull up a list of local persons of interest based on previous concerns. Weird to me. Maybe we just haven’t heard about it?</p>
<p>Statistics can show how often a woman is endangered by the male partner. When they point to certain exact subsets of religious people, pretty confident the response will reflect that.</p>
<p>Most muslims would probably object to Radical Islamists being characterized as “religious people.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The younger son went to a garage to pick up his white Mercedes from a garage that he left there two weeks ago. The garage didn’t do any work on it. The younger son was also known around UMass to be a terrible driver and many students didn’t accept rides from him.</p>
<p>UMass does have a lot of private scholarships in a lot of different areas for need and merit and he might have taken advantage of some of those. He apparently had a very good record at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (a well-regarded public school).</p>
<p>I have no problem saying that we should look at the Islamists and I think that is a fair deliniation from saying Muslims in general. Just like during the Troubles it would not have been fair to refer to catholicism as the “Religion of Peace” and paint all catholics with the same brush.</p>
<p>These seem to be the real issue-<a href=“Lists of active separatist movements - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_active_separatist_movements</a></p>
<p>How hard is it for car fixing guys to pick up an old clunker Mercedes? And I heard big bro drove a Civic to RI.</p>
<p>My understanding is fbi looked at big bro, interviewed him, but had nothing to further act on. It’s possible they.continued to monitor- or set only random repeat looks- or put this further down on the to-do list. </p>
<p>We don’t know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, he’s only 19. And yet I find myself hoping he has to have one or both of his legs amputated as a result of his injuries…</p>
<p>I guess I’m a bad person.</p>
<p>[David</a> Remnick: The Brothers Tsarnaev : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2013/04/29/130429ta_talk_remnick]David”>The Culprits | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>The country was built on the notion of individual rights. Not including vigilante justice. Think about the good parts of all our religions.</p>
<p>what I was saying was why didn’t the FBI id Tamerlan as a possible suspect in the marathon bombing, based on the previous knowledge of his extremist views</p>